RE: [SQU] Replacing MS Proxy Server with Squid

Again, I think you've missed the critical point. MS could have used DNS
in the late 80's when they started their TCP/IP stack work for NETBIOS.
No foresight was needed, simply the choice to use an existing and pretty
powerful Name resolution environment. They _deliberately chose to roll
their own_. Commonaly known as embrace and extend. (Take 50% of TCP/IP,
and recreate the rest their own way).

Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Lang [mailto:aalang@rutgersinsurance.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 3:28 AM
> To: squid-users@ircache.net
> Subject: Re: [SQU] Replacing MS Proxy Server with Squid
>
>
> I still wouldn't necessarily call it a boo boo. I would
> attribute it to not
> looking ahead far enough.
>
> I agree with you that Wins was a quick means to fix a problem.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
> To: "Adam Lang" <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com>;
> <squid-users@ircache.net>
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 10:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [SQU] Replacing MS Proxy Server with Squid
>
>
> > IMO,
> > WINS was a half-designed -half-implemented stopgap measure. MS
> > window's dependance on NETBIOS goes waaay back (SNA
> anyone?). The name
> > resolution protocols available when they created NBT for
> TCP/IP included
> > DNS. And as they have demonstrated with Windows 2000 it is perfectly
> > possible to run NBT NETBIOS lookups via DNA with no WINS
> infrastructure
> > in place.
> >
> > So yes, MS did a boo boo.
> >
> > Rob
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://www.squid-cache.org/mailing-lists.html
>
>

--
To unsubscribe, see http://www.squid-cache.org/mailing-lists.html